Hi Blog. I’ve been meaning to get to this for years now. I’m refreshed from my vacation. Let’s get to it now.

In my most recent Japan Times column (JUST BE CAUSE August 5, 2008), I intimated that I feel rather negatively about Wikipedia (I call it “that online wall for intellectual graffiti artists”). As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search.

Controversial figures such as myself may naturally invite criticism, but when a couple of “guardian editors” take advantage of the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia (which, according to their interpretation of the rules, means the entry gives priority towards towards third-party opinions, whoever they are, rather than quoting the primary source) with the aim of distorting the record, this must be pointed out and corrected. Otherwise it is harder to take Wikipedia seriously as a general source.

The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:

A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.

An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is often archived third-party material published by other authors.

Omissions of books I published months and years ago.

Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.

Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.

“Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.

Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.

In other words, this page comes off less as a record of my activities as a “teacher, author, and activist”, more as an archive of criticisms. I go into more specifics below, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry below. My problem with each section is rendered as COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO below.

I will put a “neutrality” tag up on the site and let this blog entry be the anchor site for a call for improvements. Let’s hope the Wikipedia system as it stands can right itself. Arudou Debito in Sapporo

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: The above is accurate. However, why is the sentence about my swearing “never to be a language teacher again” included? It is irrelevant.

Aldwinckle then joined a small Japanese trading company in Sapporo. It was this experience, he recounts, that started him down the path of the controversial activist that he would later become. “This was a watershed in my life,” Arudou writes. “… and it polarized my views about how I should live it. Although working [in Japan] made my Japanese really good — answering phones and talking to nasty, racist, and bloody-minded construction workers from nine to six — there was hell to pay every single day.”[2] Arudou said that he was the object of racial harassment.[2] Aldwinckle quit the company. In 1993 he joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu,Hokkaidō, teaching courses in English as a foreign language. As of 2007 he is an associate professor.[8]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: I wrote these sentiments down on my website, yes. But why is this section essentially the only one which assiduously cites Debito.org, while other sections below refrain (as the Discussion page notes, where “editor” “J Readings” states, “we really need to stop quoting Arudou’s homepage so much and instead rely much, much more on what journalists and academics are publishing about Arudou and his activities in reliable third-party sources“) from doing the same? Given that there are plenty of journalists and academics citing and publishing “about Arudou and his activities” (see final paragraph below), why are they not included?

Finally, the year I was promoted to associate professor is incorrect. Moreover, my university courses are in Business English and Debate.

Aldwinckle became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996. He obtained Japanese citizenship in 2000, whereupon he changed his name to Debito Arudou (有道出人Arudō Debito?), whose kanji he says have the figurative meaning of “a person who has a road and is going out on it.” To allow his wife and children to retain their Japanese family name, he adopted the legal name Arudoudebito Sugawara(菅原有道出人Sugawara Arudōdebito?)[5] — a combination of his wife’s Japanese maiden name and his new transliterated full name.[9]As reasons for naturalization he cited the right to vote, other rights, and increased ability to stand on his rights;[2] he later chose to renounce his U.S. citizenship.[10]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: My motivations for changing my citizenship are not primarily these, as these and other sources on Debito.org indicate. Selectively misquoted to make it seem as though I became a Japanese merely in order to stand on my rights. That is incorrect.

Ayako Sugawara gave birth to two children, Amy Sugawara Aldwinckle (Ami Sugawara (菅原 亜美Sugawara Ami?) in Japanese), and Anna Marina Aldwinckle (Anna Sugawara (菅原 杏奈Sugawara Anna?) in Japanese).[11][3][12][13] Aldwinckle described Amy as “viewed as Japanese because of her looks” and Anna as “relegated to gaijin status, same as I” because of physical appearances. [14]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Why are my children mentioned by name? They are not public figures, and they are minors. In this day when there are lots of Internet crazies out there, this shows an errant disregard for their privacy and safety. They have indicated to me that they do not want to be included by name in this Wikipedia entry. Their names should be removed.

According to Arudou’s writings, when he took his family to the Yunohana Onsen to test the rules of the onsen, the establishment allowed for Amy to enter the onsen and refused entry to Anna on the basis of their appearances. [12][13]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: This summary of the case and the interpretations of our motivations are glaringly inaccurate and misquoted. To wit: it was not only my family who attended our trip to take a bath at a facility open to the general public.

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: In 1983 I lived in Ithaca, NY, and in 1988 I lived in San Diego, California… etc. Why include a historical address? Especially after giving out the names of my children. Delete.

Arudou said that he divorced his wife in September 2006. Following the divorce[15], Arudou petitioned the Sapporo Family Court to delete his ex-wife’s Japanese maiden family name from his koseki, or Family Registry, thus officially changing his name to Debito Arudou in November 2006.[16]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Why is discussion of my divorce necessary in my Wikipedia entry? What bearing does it have on my life as a “teacher, author, and activist”?

Arudou was one of three plaintiffs in a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Yunohana Onsen in Otaru, Hokkaidō. Yunohana maintained a policy to exclude non-Japanese patrons; the business stated that it implemented the policy after Russian sailors scared away patrons from one of its other facilities. After reading an e-mail posted to a mailing list digest complaining of Yunohana’s policy in 1999,[17]Arudou visited the hot spring (onsen), along with a small group of Japanese, White, and East Asian friends, in order to confirm that only visibly non-Japanese people were excluded.[18]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Poor summary of the events.

Arudou assumed that when he returned in 2000 as a naturalized Japanese citizen, he would not be refused. The manager accepted that Arudou was a Japanese national but refused entry on the grounds that his foreign appearance could cause existing Japanese customers to assume the onsen was admitting foreigners, i.e drunk Russian sailors which were causing problems in that locality, and take their business elsewhere.[19]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Again, poor summary of the events.

Arudou and two co-plaintiffs, Kenneth Lee Sutherland and Olaf Karthaus, in February 2001 then sued Yunohana on the grounds of racial discrimination, and the City of Otaru for violation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a treaty which Japan ratified in 1996. OnNovember 11, 2002, the Sapporo District Court ordered Yunohana to pay the plaintiffs 1 million JPY each (about $25,000 United States dollars in total) in damages.[20] The court stated that “refusing all foreigners without exception is ‘unrational discrimination’ [that] can be said to go beyond permissible societal limits.” [21]The Sapporo High Court dismissed Arudou’s claim against the city of Otaru for failing to create an anti-discrimination ordinance; the court ruled that the claim did not have merit.[22] The Sapporo High Court upheld these rulings on September 16, 2004[23] and the Supreme Court of Japan denied review on April 7, 2005.[22]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Again, poor summary of the case. Everything on the case is in my book, JAPANESE ONLY, and on Debito.org, with hundreds of third-party and published references. Note how fact-confirmed published books in two languages, JAPANESE ONLY, are cited in this Wikipedia entry only once, despite being primary-source materials.

In February 2007, Arudou commented on Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File – Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007(Secret Foreigner Crime Files) a mook (magazine/book) published by Eichi Suppan on January 31. The mook contains images and descriptions of what the magazine says are crimes committed in Japan by non-Japanese, including graphs breaking down crimes by nationality. The magazine includes a caption describing a black man as a “nigga“, an article entitled “Chase the Iranian!” and calls Tokyo a “city torn apart by evil foreigners.”[24] Arudou posted a bilingual letter for readers to take to FamilyMart stores protesting against “discriminatory statements and images about non-Japanese residents of Japan.”[25]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Not only is this this a poor summary of the case, the fact remains that I have taken up plenty of other cases like these; this case in particular was not all my efforts alone. If the Wikipedia entry includes this case, it should include others (such as Tama-chan, published in several newspapers in two languages), archived on Debito.org, which do have third-party published sources as well.

Note how our works from a group I founded, The Community in Japan, are also completely ignored. If this is in fact an entry about my activism, as opposed to a page archiving criticisms, these are significant omissions.

Arudou has written a book about the 1999 Otaru hot springs incident. Arudou originally wrote the book in Japanese; the English version, Japanese Only — The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan (ISBN 4-7503-2005-6), was published in 2004 and revised in 2006. Jeff Kingston, reviewer for The Japan Times, described the book as an “excellent account of his struggle against prejudice and racial discrimination.”[26]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: There are lots more reviews on this book, many published and listed on Debito.org. How about the Tom Baker review of the book, published in the Daily Yomiuri? Also, why are these reviews not given more than a short sentence excerpt? Considering how assiduously Criticisms are cited below, why are positive reviews not? This is an editorial bias. It’s not as if there are necessarily such strict space constraints in the wiki world.

Moreover, as mentioned above, I have written more than one book. Why is the Japanese version with ISBN not listed?

Arudou has also written several textbooks on business English and debating in addition to many journalistic and academic articles.[27]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: How about listing some of them, from Source 27? Again, why downplay the subject’s works, “up-play” the criticisms?

Most glaring is that since March 2008 I have had a co-authored book, HANDBOOK FOR NEWCOMERS, MIGRANTS, AND IMMIGRANTS TO JAPAN, on the market. Yet several months and plenty of updates by the “guardian editors” later, this publication is still not listed. This omission clearly undermines the accuracy and credibility of this entire Wikipedia entry.

And why not a “Supporters” section for balance? Because the “editors” standing guard (i.e. “J Readings”, whose name appears constantly in the Discussion Section justifying keeping the current entry), say inter alia “The criticism section (not page) is supposed to be about criticism, hence the name; it’s not about “adding more balance to this section.“ The “editors”, however, later argue against citing other “Supporters” even though they fit their qualifications of, as they put it, “a notable author or organization related to Japan or human rights gave their unconditional support for Arudou’s confrontational tactics, writings, etc. in a publicly verifiable newspaper, letter-to-the-editor, academic journal, or peer reviewed non-fiction book (i.e., no vanity press)”.

The problem is that many of these words of support, even if they are independently published, are only archived on Debito.org (since other newspapers, such as the Yomiuri, Mainichi, and Kyodo, remove their archives from public view). This becomes the blanket excuse for not including them on this Wikipedia entry.

Finally, people cited below as critics do not arguably meet the same criteria for inclusion above:

“

People, including me, are fascinated by Debito Arudou because we wonder why he wanted to become Japanese in a country where he finds so many wrongs.

Anna Isozaki, one of Arudou’s former colleagues who was initially active in the BENCI (Business Excluding Non-Japanese CustomerIssho) project (unconnected to Arudou’s “Community in Japan” project), said that Arudou has an unwillingness to co-operate within a larger organization and that Arudou felt resentment against being told to separate “the apparent center of activity from himself.” [29]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Who is Anna Isozaki? Is this a notable author? Is this a notable organization? Issho Kikaku is a defunct group. And this is a person who merely wrote a letter to defunct websiteJapanReview.net (see source 29), itself not a notable organization, nor a publicly-verifiable source, academic journal, or peer-reviewed non-fiction book. Including this quote does not fall under Wikipedia or even the “editors” guidelines, and enters the territory of weasel words, cherry-picking opinions to suit an editorial bent.

Bob Neff adjacent, although an author of one book on onsens, is not noted for writing about discrimination issues in Japan. And the source again is JapanReview.net. See how many of these criticisms below come from one source, JapanReview.net, run by Yuki Honjo and Paul Scalise, which may indicate the “guardian editors” identities (and their editorial bents, given their highly-biased review of book JAPANESE ONLY).

Alex Kerr, author of Dogs and Demons: Tales from the Dark Side of Japan (ISBN 0-8090-3943-5), believed that Arudou’s tactics are “too combative.” Kerr said that he was doubtful “whether in the long run it really helps.” According to Kerr, “in Japan… [the combative] approach fails.” Kerr said that “gaijin and theirgaijin ways are now part of the fabric of Japan’s new society,” and feared that Arudou’s activities may “confirm conservative Japanese in their belief that gaijin are difficult to deal with.”[30] On 7 April2007, Arudou publicly criticized Kerr’s comments on his personal blog and mass e-mail newsletter lists. Following Arudou’s public criticisms, Kerr responded in an open e-mail posted by Arudou elaborating on his initial impressions of Arudou’s tactics, his current impressions of Arudou’s newsletter and website, and Kerr’s own distinct techniques for being critical in the field of “traditional culture, tourism, city planning, and the environment” — “to speak quietly, from ‘within.’” Respecting Arudou’s “undoubtedly combative” tactics, Kerr now concluded by stating: “I wholly support [Arudou’s] activities and [his] methods.”[31]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: If one reads the original Japan Times interview with Alex Kerr, it is clear that his comments were in fact about two-thirds supportive of my works. But only the critical one-third is cited. Later, when Alex clarifies his comments on Debito.org (see first comment on site) and acknowledges that he has been misquoted, it is, once again, highly abridged. And it is tucked away into the Criticisms section as a footnote, as opposed to creating a separate “Supporters” section that qualifies under the “guardian editors'” own guidelines.

Responding to Arudou’s statements regarding the United States Department of State in the Hokkaido International Business Association (HIBA), Alec Wilczynski, Consul General, American Consulate General Sapporo, said that Arudou’s statements contain “antics,” “omissions,” and “absurd statements” as part of an attempt “to revive interest in his flagging ‘human rights’ campaign.” On his website Arudou responded with the statement “A surprising response from a diplomat,” and posted commentary from an associate regarding the renunciation of Arudou’s United States citizenship.[10]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Why should Wikipedia readers care what a Mr. Alec Wilczynski said? Is he a published author or notable person regarding human rights in Japan? Moreover, note how editorial constraints are suddenly relaxed to allow Debito.org to be cited — because it is a criticism. But the counterarguments also listed on that cited website are not listed in any detail. Again, the editorial bent is stress the criticism, downplay the counterarguments from supporters.

Gregory Clark, Akita International University Vice-President, views the lawsuit as the product of “ultrasensitivity” and “Western moralizing.”[32][33] Yuki Allyson Honjo, a book critic at JapanReview.net, criticized Clark’s statements and referred to him as one of a group of “apologists.” [34] Clark responded to Honjo’s criticism, believing that Honjo mis-characterized his statements. Honjo responded by saying that her use of the word “apologist” applied to Clark’s particular stance on Arudou’s case and not as a sweeping generalization of Clark’s character. Honjo maintained her stance regarding Clark’s statements. [35]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: This Wikipedia entry is about Arudou Debito, not about “book critic” Yuki Allyson Honjo’s debate with Gregory Clark (again, all cited from defunct and non-peer-reviewed website JapanReview.net). Look at all the detail given this debate, and how little is accorded other debates which involve detractor and supporter? To me it makes it clear precisely who “guardian editor” “J Readings” is.

Arudou has been criticized as “fishing for trouble”, and that he “distort[s] the facts”. “If there is insufficient media scrutiny, it is of Arudou’s outlandish claims.”[36]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Same style, same bent, and this time nobody cited by name for verification. There are plenty of other people who say the opposite (see below). Why not include them somewhere on this Wikipedia entry?

Robert Neff, author of Japan’s Hidden Hot Springs (ISBN 0-8048-1949-1), believes that much of Arudou’s campaign is divisive, stating: “I think much of his campaign is faux because most of the places he is going after are in Hokkaido trying to protect themselves from drunken Russians. I have bathed and/or stayed at well over 200 onsen establishments and been stopped only once.”[28]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Again, the source is defunct and non-peer-reviewed JapanReview.net.

“

Arudou and his family should not have been excluded from the onsen in Otaru, but I suspect I am not alone in objecting to the way this unpleasant, but essentially trivial incident has been parlayed into a career opportunity.

Peter Tasker, author of numerous non-fiction and fiction works on Japan, argues that in “attempting to monster [Japan] into George Wallace‘s Alabama, [Arudou] trivializes the real-life brutal discrimination that still disfigures our world and the heroic campaigners who have put themselves on the line to fight it.”[37]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Again, the source is JapanReview.net. And is this novelist a published authority on human rights in Japan?

Alexander Kinmont, a former chief equity strategist of NikkoCitygroup, does not believe that a collection of bath-houses, “soaplands,” massage parlors, and nightclubs is representative of Japan’s civil rights situation in any meaningful sense.[38]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Again, the source is JapanReview.net. And why is the opinion of a stockbroker cited? Is he an authority published in the field of human rights?

Tasker and Kinmont object to Arudou’s statements comparing the institutionalized racial discrimination historically exhibited in the segregatedAmerican south with the examples that, according to Arudou, show racial discrimination in Japan.[37][38]

COMMENT FROM ARUDOU DEBITO: Again, the source is JapanReview.net. Kinmont and Tasker misquote me and the facts of the cases anyway.

That’s the end of the Wikipedia entry. Sources are available on Wikipedia, so I won’t list them here. Look how much JapanReview.net is cited despite the expressed editorial guidelines.

Finally the REFERENCE LINKS section not only does not mention Debito.org, but also includes yet another link to Yuki Honjo at JapanReview.net. Even though there are lots more reference links out there (many have been included, then deleted in the past by editors) by published third-party sources. Why only these? And why, when there are errors in the articles (such as in the Rial article and the Honjo review), aren’t sources listing these errors mentioned as well?

Omitting the comments and sentiments of these people make the Wikipedia entry sorely lacking in balance, accurate research, and respect for the facts of the case or the works of the person biographied. Again, this page comes off less as a record of my activities as a “teacher, author, and activist”, more as an archive of criticisms.

For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry and hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself.

26 Responses to “My problems with Wikipedia: Its biased entry on “Arudou Debito””

Let me give you a piece of friendly advice. It is futile to try to manage your online reputation, particularly as embodied by your Wikipedia entry. Any changes you try to make to your own Wikipedia entry in the pursuit of accuracy will always backfire. It will merely incite your critics to step up their edits. It is a losing proposition.

You know, if you have a problem with the article, bring it up on the talk page there. Whining about the article only serves to bring more attention to it, and you apparently don’t like the fact that there is so much attention given to it.

–I did bring it up on the talk page there. With a summary. And a link back to this blog entry for full substantiation.

“Why are my children mentioned by name? They are not public figures, and they are minors. In this day when there are lots of Internet crazies out there, this shows an errant disregard for their privacy and safety.”

Er…then why did you post their names and pictures on the Internet? Multiple times? How can you expect a bunch of random wikipedia editors to show more concern about your kids safety than you yourself do?

Let me preface with by saying that I do not work for Wikipedia. Nor am I an administrator or even a frequent editor. While I recognize a number of major issues with most articles, I also must recognize the sheer possibility that the project as a whole has.

> 1. A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.

The Criticism section seems to be sourced. Do you have problems with those sources? Are there other sources that you think could supplement it? Do you know of sources for the supporters? Take these answers to the article talk page.

2. An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is often archived third-party material published by other authors.

A primary source, especially on a personal website, is generally not peer-reviewed and you can (in theory) essentially write whatever they wish, regardless of fact or fiction. If you want those details to be more reliable, publishing them in some kind of peer-reviewed format such as a journal or book would give far more credence.

6. “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.

Japan Review? Of course there is a degree to reliability. In generally I’ll trust actual books and journals over websites. However, this website seems to be more reliable and impartial then a personal website. You can always take such discussions to the article talk page.

7. Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.

Add {{Relevance}}. Determining whether content is encyclopedic is often not so clear.

–Thanks for the advice and wikitools. However, I’m not sure that adding things to or removing things from a Wikipedia entry on me is something I should do. I was hoping that conscientious people out there (which clearly make up the bulk of contributors to Wikipedia) would take the links provided to other sources on this blog entry and make the site more accurate and balanced. Let’s see. Thanks again.

If your children are not ‘public figures’ then why write about them on this website, especially last year, extensively going into personal family problems on your trips back to the States, detailing your daughter’s moods and reaction to your various visits at the family home? Did you consult her before writing about her and her emotional moods on your blog? It’s your website; you can write whatever you want. I don’t think you named your child, but still — once you introduce such family information on your blog, many on the net will consider such details ‘fair game’ for distortion…

Are you as ‘controversial’ as Obama or Hillary Clinton?!? I know you’re not comparing yourself to those two, but others might get the wrong idea…

and I’m not surprised at what they do at Wiki – after reading what they want people to beleive about natural health issues, in particular homeopathy that I’m studying and using with great satisfaction. But I strongly beleive that people who are able “to smell the rat” in what they read are the ones to address oneself to, and once your comments are made public at this blog – such people will know what to find where, and how to interpret it!

I, for example, know that although my opinions differ a little from yours, my appreciation of your endeavour remains the same and is very high, if it’s the right word – I hope you see what you mean. (Homeopathy is a much disputed issue, so it’s better maybe that you don’t list my comment in your blog, I just wanted you to know that all sorts of people are out there watching you with much compassion, understanding and hope.)

Some of your suggested changes will be done. Some others will not be. The discussion is continuing at the moment.

As someone who’s dealt with scum as low as 2-channel, I expect you can appreciate (at least a little) the good side of Wikipedia. They do have something tantamount to common law, through which your requests will be made or not made. You could very well lecture me on the perils of becoming a “public figure”, and the Wikipedia page is naturally a trickle down from that.

The fact that it shows up high on Google results is, yes, because Wikipedia and Google became a bit of bedfellows. But that relationship, in itself, comes down to the fact that people will click on it and link to it.

I’m just saying, your problems are a result of the masses, not the medium.

–For the record, I think Wikipedia is a good thing, and I do look at it for other topics. It’s just that it has its flaws, worth pointing out. If I didn’t care about it, I wouldn’t bother.

I heard a Medical University prof talk lately about Wikipedia. He was highly critical of the inaccuracies posted, and made an astute observation. “Democratizing knowledge may be good, but these guys are democratizing surgery. that’s not a good idea. Is it? It’s not a do-it-yourself thing” I can’t help but wonder. I rarely check Wikipedia as I found it inadequate, depth of knowledge wise.

I agree with your assessment of “your” wikipedia entry. I would like to know more about what motivates those who take time out of their day to tarnish your name. The scope of their lies attest to how threatened they feel. If nothing else, knowing what one’s detractors “think” might be very insightful as to how one might make his work even more meaningful.

“I heard a Medical University prof talk lately about Wikipedia. He was highly critical of the inaccuracies posted, and made an astute observation. “Democratizing knowledge may be good, but these guys are democratizing surgery. that’s not a good idea. Is it? It’s not a do-it-yourself thing” I can’t help but wonder. I rarely check Wikipedia as I found it inadequate, depth of knowledge wise.”

You may be right, but I think Wikipedia is really good for findings sources. If you’re doing a research, Wikipedia can link you to dozens of books, etc, on the subject and gives you a good head start on what to look for. That’s what I use it for anyway.

When I first visited your blog last year I also went to Wikipedia just to see if I could maybe gleen a quick summary of your background. Yet, with little prior knowledge about you or your activities, I could tell pretty quickly how biased it was. Since then I have enjoyed periodically visiting your blog. To be sure, it must frustrating to see people fabricate the truth about you on Wikipedia. Makes you wonder if it really does plant a seed. Nonetheless, while it may raise questions for a moment, I think most people like myself will dig a little deeper if they really want to get a full picture.

–I was hoping they would. But many don’t. Many don’t have the time or the inclination. And it has affected my works in the human rights field. It is very frustrating indeed.

I’m a little surprised at this reaction to the wikipedia article Debito, just because when I googled “Debito” it came up with this site that has a lot of worse things to say, then again, I guess this is from a parody site.

“Why are my children mentioned by name? They are not public figures, and they are minors. In this day when there are lots of Internet crazies out there, this shows an errant disregard for their privacy and safety.”

A few days before I read the above, I happened by chance to have read somewhere on your website your piece titled Homecoming 2007. I had been very startled to see you gave the full name of one of your daughters as well as the names and street address (including town, state and zip code) of your parents, with whom the daughter was living at the time. That seemed to be less than prudent and certainly not considerate of the rights to privacy of those three persons. Had you received their prior permission to put that information in a place visible to anyone with a computer and access to the internet? Even if that were the case one would hope that you would have had the common sense not to publish it.

Then a few days later I read the above comment by you and really had to wonder how you can reconcile or explain those two stances.

[…] Alex Kerr, author of Dogs and Demons: Tales from the Dark Side of Japan (ISBN 0-8090-3943-5), believed that Arudou’s tactics are “too combative.” Kerr said that he was doubtful “whether in the long run it really helps.” According to Kerr, “in Japan… [the combative] approach fails.” Kerr said that “gaijin and their gaijin ways are now part of the fabric of Japan’s new society,” and feared that Arudou’s activities may “confirm conservative Japanese in their belief that gaijin are difficult to deal with.”[30] On 7 April 2007, Arudou publicly criticized Kerr’s comments on his personal blog and mass e-mail newsletter lists. Following Arudou’s public criticisms, Kerr responded in an open e-mail posted by Arudou elaborating on his initial impressions of Arudou’s tactics, his current impressions of Arudou’s newsletter and website, and Kerr’s own distinct techniques for being critical in the field of “traditional culture, tourism, city planning, and the environment” — “to speak quietly, from ‘within.’” Respecting Arudou’s “undoubtedly combative” tactics, Kerr now concluded by stating: “I wholly support [Arudou’s] activities and [his] methods.”[31] […]

HI BLOG. JUST IN CASE YOU’RE THINKING I’M OVERREACTING TO THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY, HERE’S ANOTHER REASON WHY I WANT IT TO BE ACCURATE AND PROPERLY SOURCED. MY SPEECH VENUE TOMORROW AT CAL BERKELEY EXCERPTED THE WIKIPEDIA PROFILE WHOLE TO ADVERTISE THE EVENT. MOJIBAKE AND ALL. AND YES, I DID SEND THEM A BIO THEY COULD HAVE USED IN ADVANCE… WIKIPEDIA IS THAT POWERFUL–PEOPLE USE IT AS A CLIFF’S NOTES. DEBITO

“Japan’s Multicultural Multiethnic Future: Problems and Solutions for the 21st Century”
Arudou Debito, Hokkaido Information University
DATE: Wednesday, August 27, 2008
TIME: 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM
PLACE: IEAS Conference Room, 2223 Fulton Street, 6th Floor
FORMAT: Brown-bag lunch lecture
SPONSORS: Center for Japanese Studies
Arudou was born David Christopher Aldwinckle in California. He attended Cornell University, first visiting Japan as a tourist. Following this experience, he dedicated his senior year as an undergraduate to studying Japanese, graduating in 1987. Aldwinckle then joined a small Japanese trading company in Sapporo. It was this experience, he recounts, that started him the path of the controversial activist that he would later become. In 1993 he joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, HokkaidÅ. As of 2007 he is an associate professor.
Aldwinckle became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996. He obtained Japanese citizenship in 2000, whereupon he changed his name to Debito Arudou (æœ‰é“å‡ºäºº ArudÅ Debito), whose kanji he says have the figurative meaning of “a person who has a road and is going out on it.”
Arudou has written a book about the 1999 Otaru hot springs incident. Arudou originally wrote the book in Japanese; the English version, Japanese Only — The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan, was published in 2004 and revised in 2006. Jeff Kingston, reviewer for The Japan Times, described the book as an “excellent account of his struggle against prejudice and racial discrimination.”
Discussant – John Ertl, Cal alum and Kanazawa University professor
ENDS

You know, if you have a problem with the article, bring it up on the talk page there.

This really illustrates a basic problem with Wikipedia – it expects everyone to play by its rules, regardless of the problems the site has created itself. It’s an arrogant attitude, and I must say is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is not popular in Japan.

If you think your English Wikipedia page is bad, you should see the Japanese one. There is even a section quoting a Japan Times opinion article as fact (about you “fishing for trouble” at Chitose Airport)

“This really illustrates a basic problem with Wikipedia – it expects everyone to play by its rules, regardless of the problems the site has created itself. It’s an arrogant attitude, and I must say is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is not popular in Japan.”

Nevin, what “problems” has “the site” created? I don’t see a double standard. What is happening is that Wikipedia is becoming stricter in which content is acceptable and in the checks on the content. Maybe Wikipedia was a mess in 2004, but much has changed in four years.

BTW, If you wish to examine the Japanese article, you need to contact the Japanese Wikipedia staff over there. EN and JA are separate projects organized by the same foundation.

I am not sure if JA has local policies similar to BLP, but the encyclopedia does not report names of some Japanese victims of crimes. (This may be in accordance to Japanese law, as the encyclopedia follows both Japanese and United States laws since the server is in the U.S., and the majority of readers are Japanese)

Generally speaking, anyone with a user account can post anything to Wikipedia, or alter a Wikipedia page (in this case Debito’s page). The site operates under its own rules and guidelines, and you have to understand the rules and guidelines in order to participate, or, in this case, correct misinformation about yourself. Even if the content is defamatory or slanderous, it is up to the victim to prove himself innocent. This is the basic problem with Wikipedia. Anyone can post anything, and so long as they follow the rules of Wikipedia, they can pretty much publish anything they want.

Seigenthaler had no idea someone was writing malicious and untrue rumours about him on Wikipedia. When Seigenthaler did find out, Wikipedia told him that he should have been more careful to manage his online presence on Wikipedia in the first place – even though he never even knew Wikipedia existed.

While Debito has not been able to do so, for some reason Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has been able to alter his own biography:

Nevin said: “Even if the content is defamatory or slanderous, it is up to the victim to prove himself innocent. This is the basic problem with Wikipedia. Anyone can post anything, and so long as they follow the rules of Wikipedia, they can pretty much publish anything they want.”

Nevin, that is not correct.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP – Information on living people MUST be sourced, or else it CANNOT be included. If the information is POV, it MUST be corrected. The burden of proof is on the person who is placing the information into the encyclopedia, NOT the subject. BLP was established because of the Siegenthaler incident.

Wikipedia’s policies regarding living people are laid out clearly in one convenient place.

So this statement “Anyone can post anything, and so long as they follow the rules of Wikipedia, they can pretty much publish anything they want” doesn’t work out, because one cannot “publish anything they want” – content is restricted to what is “encyclopedic,” plus BLP places prohibitions on spreading certain information (addresses, phone numbers) if there are no secondary reliable sources.

Also, regarding “Seigenthaler had no idea someone was writing malicious and untrue rumours about him on Wikipedia.” – this “rumor” was a prank by an employee named Brian Chase. It totally went out of control, and Chase ended up in a lot of trouble.

About the note about the inclusion of the divorce information: you are not the only figure who has that included in their Wikipedia page. I understand that it doesn’t seem relevant, but it’s standard form, I think.